pdf-tiedostona - Kotikielen Seura

the influence of the transitive sentences
which served as a model is still reflected.
In relation to the resultative verb
governing it the object is equally nonagentive
as the subject of an existential
sentence is in relation to a predicate verb
(including also sentences such as Pihalla
juoksee poikia 'there are boys running in
the garden' in which the inherent agentivity
of the subject has been embedded
in the collective event of the locality).
The fact that intransitive non-agentive
sentences of this type are continuously
associated with resultative transitive
sentences with similar topic/comment
relationships seems to have had an important
additional consequence: the cognitive
tendency to distinguish nonagentive
action from agentive action is
reflected in the finite sentences of Finnish,
but it has never acquired a consistent
means of expression (comp. the nonagentive
intransitive sentences mentioned
in 1.4 which in Finnish behave like
transitive sentences).
2.4.3. An additional group of phenomena
appears to be connected with the
history of existential sentences. The partitive
has long had the additional function
of serving as an attribute in connection
with 1) substantives denoting a group or
an amount, 2) numerals and 3) such
quantificators as paljo(n) 'much' and
viihd(n) 'little'. In Finnish the partitive
now appears as the attribute of substantives
denoting a group or an amount
in all sentence positions'. Joukko miehia
(partit. pi.) sai lopputilin 'a group of men
received severence pay', Sulla oli joukko
miehia 'there was a group of men there',
Ndinjoukon miehia 'I saw a group of men',
Tutustuin isoon joukkoon miehia T became
acquainted with a large group of men'
etc. In the case of numerals a partitive
attribute only appears, on the other hand,
when the construction functions as a
subject or object; in other positions it is
replaced by the case of the noun demanded
by the context with the numeral
functioning as a congruent attribute of
the noun: Kolme miesta (partit. sg.) sai
lopputilin 'three men received severence
pay', Sielld oli kolme miesta 'there were
three men there', Nain kolme miesta 'I
saw three men', but Kolmen miehen (gen.
sg.) palkka oli maksamatta 'three men's
salary had not been paid', Tutustuin kolmeen
mieheen (illat. sg.) T became acquainted
with three men' etc. This type
of limitation on the appearance of the
partitive attribute must represent an
older stage than its connection with any
TERHO ITKONEN
case form as demanded by grammatical
context. Originally, use of the partitive
attribute seems to have been even more
limited than it is in present-day Finnish
in connection with numerals. A glimpse
in this direction may be seen in the
appearance of a partitive attribute in connection
with the quantificators paljo(n)
'much' and vaha(n) 'little'. There it is
only used when the construction is the
subject of an existential sentence or the
object of a resultative verb. In all other
positions (including its functioning as
the subject of a normal sentence) constructions
are used in which the substantive
is the main word and paljo,
vaha an attribute in congruence with it.
Examples are: Pihalla oli paljon lunta (partit.
sg. 'there was a lot of snow in the yard',
Sain vain vah'dn kolikoita (partit. pi.) 'I
only got a few coins', but (in the position
of subject of a normal sentence) Paljo
lukeminen (nom. sg.) rasittaa silmid 'a lot
of reading strains the eyes), (in the position
of object in irresultative sentences)
Noudatin hdnen vdhid toivomuksiaan T complied
with the few wishes he presented',
(in other sentence positions) En vdlitd
paljosta rahasta (elat. sg.) ~ paljoista kolikoista
(elat. pi.) 'I am not concerned
about a lot of money ~ a lot of coins'
etc.
This type of restriction of partitive
attribute in connection with the subject
of a non-existential sentence is an example
of the same type of ergative system as
that presented by the restriction on the
partitive subject. The phenomenon is
strengthened by the fact that it can be
traced back to early Proto-Finnic on the
basis of evidence provided by Eastern
Lappish. In Eastern Lappish the partitive
attribute is encountered in the same three
situations as it is in Finnish (in the case of
numeral constructions, however, only in
conjunction with numbers higher than
six). The constructions do, however,
appear only in the position of subject and
object and a still more sensitive limitation
appears in the numeral constructions of
Inari Lappish: the partitive attribute is
encountered only when the construction
appears either as the object or as the subject
of a sentence corresponding to a Finnish
existential sentence. In other cases (also in
position corresponding to the subject of
a Finnish normal sentence) constructions
are used in which the substantive is the
head word and the numeral its attribute
(see Erkki Itkonen 1973: 308—316). In
the light of this it is easy to suppose that
the partitive attribute traceable back to
61